|
|
|
|
|
|
by eli
2077 days ago
|
|
|
I think that's a very generous reading of what Biden said, especially considering the followup question and the fact that he's declined to clarify his position in the intervening 8 months. Search "230" on this page to see it https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b... Anyway my point was that there have been calls to repeal 230 from across the ideological spectrum. |
|
|
In the followup, Biden reiterates the conduct condition and the knowing falsehood criteria, which reinforces rather than weakens the impression that he is calling for the protections of Section 230 to be inapplicable to the actor/action in question due to their knowledge, a distributor-like standard, and not for the law itself to be repealed generally.
I suppose you could read the first line of his response to the second followup ("He should be submitted to civil liability and his company to civil liability, just like you would be here at The New York Times") as calling for publisher-like liability if you ignore the explicit references to actual knowledge as the basis for nonprotection in both the original response and the first followup, but I do think that that is the more strained interpretation, not the less strained.
> and the fact that he's declined to clarify his position in the intervening 8 months.
Why would you assume that he doesn't want to clarify because he wants a full repeal? Its not as if there isn't a constituency for a full repeal, especially on the right, and a key part of Biden's strategy is holding together a Bernie Sanders-to-Bill Kristol left-right alliance against Trump. Keeping disagreements the details of his position on the issue (which is clearly peripheral to his platform, on the grand scheme of things) out of the reasons for people to not feel comfortable with him is as plausible a motivation for that regardless of which side of the full-repeal-vs.-reform his preference on 230 sits on.